ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

We find some force in the above arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee. Admittedly, the learned CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order due to non-appearance of the assessee despite number of opportunities granted by him but the assessee was seeking adjournment from time to time. It is to be noted that during the course of assessment proceedings also the assessee had not filed the requisite details to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for which huge additions have been made. However, it is seen that various additions have been made by the Assessing Officer which amounts to double addition of the same amount i.e. in the hands of the assessee as well as in the hands of two companies and other relatives. The submission of the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he was a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries and that only commission income should be considered as his income also has not been considered by the lower authorities. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per facts and law. The AO while deciding the issue shall also keep in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra). The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and substantiate his case failing which the Assessing Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.”

In set-aside proceedings, the AO without considering the submissions of the assessee, passed the assessment orders on 30.03.2023 for all the years again making the additions towards the bank deposits by treating the same as unexplained and further made other additions towards the cash found during the search etc.

Against the said orders, assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) who vide separate orders dated 30.05.2025 for all the three assessment years, allowed substantial relief to the assessee and uphold the additions by treating the assessee as moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries as admitted by assessee in his statements recorded u/s 132(4) and commission income @ 0.50% is applied on all the transactions appearing in the bank statements and loose papers which were alleged as the accommodation entries provided by the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal in all the three assessment years before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal taken in AY 2010-11 by the revenue reads as under:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not considering search and seizure material for the bases of addition as incrimination material. Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not considering the fact found by AO that assessee as a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries had rotated his own funds in the disguise of multilayer transactions through shell accounts/entities operated by assessee himself.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not considering the fact that address of the most of the account holders were assessee residential address and most of the account holders are relative/friend of the assessee.

The grounds of appeal

The explanation filed by appellant for each credit entry, summary of receipts, computation of income and return of income has been pursued. From his submission it is evident that the appellant had considered credit appearing in his bank account for computation of income and considering the taxability of such receipts in his bank account, filed return of income. Accordingly, I find that the action of the AO in making the additions in the assessment order of credit entries appearing in bank of the appellant leads to double taxation of the same income which is not permissible in law. It is trite that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice. Hence, I find that the additions made by the AO on account of credit entries appearing in bank of the appellant in para 4.14 of the order are not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore are liable to be deleted. I hold accordingly. Thus, the additions so made by the AO in the assessment order are deleted. I hold accordingly. Thus, the additions so made by thee AO in the assessment order are deleted to the following extent. Deletion of addition on account of credit entries appearing in bank of the appellant: Assessment Year Amount AY 2012-13 4,96,456 AY 2011-12 22,70,258 AY 2010-11 2,71,906 AY 2009-10 6,04,455 AY 2008-09 15,52,134 AY2007-08 3,09,124 AY 2006-07 1,19,909 b. Credits appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee’s clients, relatives, and friends 15-18 ……… 19. Upon careful consideration of the observations of the AO and the submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that the AO made the additions of credit appearing in bank of Spouse, Daughter, Son, Mama, Brother-in-law, etc. of the appellant. On perusal of bank statements of these persons, no substantial cash is suggested to be deposited in such bank account. Even in some of the cases, the additions made by AO is of Rs. 15, Rs. 132, Rs. 141, Rs.

It is not abnormal that bank details of family members, relative, clients Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal are kept by a Chartered Accountant for return filing purposes. No material on record including copy of panchnama, Inventory of Documents seized during search or observation of AO in the assessment order suggest that the appellant is having access over these account by keeping cheques, cheque books or blank signed forms. Moreover, provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in instant matter, as no sum is credited in books of accounts of the appellant. Accordingly, I hold that the action of the AO in making the additions in the assessment order of credit entries appearing in bank of the relative, family members, clients, friends of the appellant will lead to double taxation of same income in hand of respective persons and the appellant. Hence, the additions made by the AO on account of credit entries appearing in bank of the relative, family members, clients, friends of the appellant in para 4.14 of the order are not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore are liable to be deleted. I hold accordingly. Thus, the additions so made by the AO in the assessment order are deleted to the following extent:

Keeping in view the facts of the case, direction of Hon’ble ITAT and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Kabul Chawla (supra) wherein it has been held that “since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed”,I hold that the action of the AO in making the additions in the assessment order of credit entries appearing in the bank account of the companies without having any incriminating material on record is against the direction of Hon’ble ITAT and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). This view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been affirmed Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). Hence, the additions made by the AO on account of credit entries appearing in bank companies namely M/s Wizard Realcon Pvt Ltd, M/s Wizard Developers Pvt Ltd, M/s Leo Sales Company Pvt Ltd and M/s Anubhav Buildmart Pvt Ltd in para 4.14 of the assessment order are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such are liable to be deleted. I hold accordingly. Hence, the additions so made by the AO in the assessment order, the details of which are given in the table below, are hereby deleted. Deletion of addition on account of credit entries as discussed above S. No. Name AY 2009-10 AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 Total 1. Wizard Realcon 23,78,22,407 13,78,22,407 2,32,45,552 31,79,37,031 Private Limited 2 Wizard 16,63,89,015 2,20,73,454 12,94,74,562 39,21,73,658 Developers Private Limited 3 Anubhav 24,90,57,709 22,44,54,832 17,84,92,886 65,20,05,472 Buildmart Private Limited 4 Leo Sales 10,21,36,476 30,57,88,690 86,76,237 41,66,01,403 Company Private Limited Total 75,63,05,607 68,25,22,675 33,98,89,237 177,87,17,519 d. Credit appearing in the bank accounts of company having no relation with the appellant, however, list of shareholder and financial statement were found from the premises of appellant 26 to 29 ……………..

Upon careful consideration of the observations of the AO and the submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that the AO has made addition of credit appearing in bank of M/s Gurudev Financial Services Private Limited in hand of the appellant. No material on record including copy of panchnama, Inventory of Documents seized during search or observation of AO in the assessment order suggest that the appellant is having access over these companies by keeping cheques, cheque books or blank signed forms. Moreover, provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in instant matter as no sum is found credited in books of the appellant and any sum credited in books of account or bank account of these companies cannot be deemed to be credited in books of account of the appellant, as provision of section 68 of the Act does not provide any such deeming fiction. As directed by Hon’ble ITAT in its order that decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) is required to be kept in mind during the fresh assessment proceedings. However, no reference to the decision of Hon’ble Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal Delhi High Court in the aforementioned case Kabul Chawla (supra) is given by the AO in the assessment order.

Keeping in view of facts of the case, direction of Hon’ble ITAT and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Kabul Chawla (supra), I hold that the action of the AO in making the additions in the assessment order of credit entries appearing in the bank account of the companies without having any incriminating material on record is against the direction of Hon’ble ITAT and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). Hence, the additions made by the AO on account of credit entries appearing in bank account of the company namely M/s Gurudev Financial Services Private Limited in para 4.14 of the assessment order are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such are liable to be deleted.

However, the fact that the appellant during the course of search operation in his statement accepted that he is engaged in business of providing accommodation entries as moderator or facilitator cannot be ignored. The relevant extract of the statement is reproduced: Q7 Please explain in detail about business of accommodation entries & also give detail about commission earned on this business. Ans. I provide some entries to my clients such as Share Capital & bill of expenses on which 0.10% of the amount provided as entry is earned as commission.

From the fact that the appellant was a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries and list of shareholders of M/s Gurudev Financial Services Private Limited was found from the premises of the appellant, it emerged that the appellant had worked as moderator or facilitator for providing the share capital is accommodation entries.

Further, the Hon’ble ITAT in its order dated 03.09.2021 observed that “The submission of the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he was a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries and that only commission income should be considered as his income also has not been considered by the lower authorities”.

Accordingly based on the fact of the case and direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, commission income on credit appearing in bank of Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal M/s Gurudev Financial Services Private Limited is required to be added in hand of the appellant. Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain vs. DCIT Central Circle Ghaziabad for AY 2012-13 adopted rate of 0.5% commission income on accommodation entry. The relevant extract of order of Hon’ble ITAT as contained in Para 18 thereof is reproduced as under: “The coordinate Benches of the Tribunal under identical circumstances are adopting the rate of commission varying from @ 0.15% to 0.5%. Considering the totality of the facts of the case we direct the AO to adopt the profit rate of 0.5% as commission on such accommodation entry…”

Thus, based on the fact of the case and decision of Hon’ble ITAT in matter of Manoj Kumar Jain (supra), commission income @0.50% on credit appearing in bank of M/s Gurudev Financial Services Private Limited is required to be added in hand of the appellant.

Accordingly, the additions so made by the AO in the assessment order are required to be modified to the following extent:- S. No. Assessment Year Addition Made Commission income by the AO @ 0.50% requested to be added 1. AY 2007-08 97,16,700 48,584 2. AY 2008-09 69,18,500 34,593 3. AY 2009-10 11,90,000 5,950 4. AY 2010-11 39,53,038 19,765 5. AY 2011-12 40,38,139 20,191 6. AY 2012-13 2,07,07,655 1,03,538 Total 4,65,24,032 38. Considering the aforesaid facts, direction of Hon’ble ITAT, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Kabul Chawla (supra), I find that the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders for the above mentioned for assessment years are required to be restricted to commission income @0.50% since the appellant is engaged in business of providing accommodation entries as moderator or facilitator of such accommodation entries. I hold accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed.

The appellant in this regard has submitted that the during the course of search operation dated 11.04.2011 some pocket dairies seized from the premises of the appellant. The appellant has duly explained the period to which such pocket dairies pertain and content of these dairies. The appellant, in his statement recorded during the search, specifically clarified as follows: “A-6 relates to year 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 A-7 relates to 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 A-8 relates to 01.04.2001 to 09.04.2001 A-9 is a rough diary with some addresses, phone numbers and amounts”

The appellant further stated that- “In all these pocket diaries, some calculations are noted. I do not remember such calculations at this time. I have never stated that the written figures are in lakhs. I always write the actual figures. None of the amounts mentioned in these diaries were received in or paid from my bank account.”

The appellant further submitted that the AO has not provided any working or justification explaining how the figures forming the basis of the addition have been arrived at. The total considered by the AO from Annexure(s) is also factually incorrect and unsupported by any computation or reconciliation.

The appellant without prejudice to the above, also submitted that- “alternative contention that even the addition of alleged commission income based on the impounded pocket diary (Annexure A8) ought not to be made in the hands of the assessee. At no stage—either during the original assessment proceedings or during the remand proceedings— the Learned Assessing Officer did not undertake any independent verification or inquiry to substantiate the actual receipt of alleged commission income. Accordingly, no addition on account of commission income should be made in the hands of the assessee based on the said pocket diary”

The fact that appellant during the course of search operation in his statement accepted that he is engaged in business of providing accommodation entries as moderator cannot be ignored.

Further, the Hon’ble ITAT in its order dated 03.09.2021 observed that- “The submission of the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he was a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries and that only commission income should be considered as his income also has not been considered by the lower authorities”.

Accordingly based on the facts of the case and direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, only commission income on transaction appearing on pocket diaries Annexure-A6, A7, A8 and A9 is required to be added in hand of the appellant.

The Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain (supra) for AY 2012-13 adopted rate of 0.5% commission income on accommodation entry as discussed above.

Thus, based on the fact of the case and decision of Hon’ble ITAT in matter of Manoj Kumar Jain (supra) Commission income @0.50% on transaction appearing on pocket diaries Annexure- A6, A7, A8 and A9 is required to be added in hand of the appellant.

Accordingly, the additions made by the AO in the assessment order(s) are required to be modified year wise to the following extent:- S. No. Assessment Year Pocket Dairy Addition Made Commission Annexure by the AO income @ 0.50% to be added 1. AY 2010-11 Annexure-A7 4,42,47,594 2,21,238 2. AY 2010-12 Annexure-A6 8,63,52,412 4,31,762 3. AY 2011-12 Annexure-A9 28,97,989 14,490 4. AY 2012-13 Annexure-A8 77,20,890 38,604

Considering the aforesaid facts, direction of Hon’ble ITAT and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Kabul Chawla (supra), I find that the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders for the above mentioned for assessment years Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal are required to be restricted to commission income @0.50% since the appellant is engaged in business of providing accommodation entries as moderator or facilitator of such accommodation entries. I hold accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed. Issue-3: Addition on the basis of seized loose sheet (Annexure-A4) 52. With respect to this issue, the appellant has submitted that during the course of the search operation conducted on 11.04.2011, certain loose sheets were seized from the premises of the appellant. These loose sheets were subsequently compiled and labelled as Annexure-A4. The appellant contended that these loose sheets are mere dumb documents and bear no relation to any transactions of the appellant. It was further submitted that these loose sheets may contain rough working notes prepared for the purpose of consultancy or could have been brought by clients seeking professional advice. The description of some of the pages of Annexure-A4 is as follows. Pages 21 to 25 of Annexure-A4 (Addition INR 23,07,00,000) contain name of certain companies purportedly giving share application money to other companies. With respect to these loose sheets, the assessee submitted that these documents were brought by clients for seeking professional advice and for the purpose of filing relevant forms with the Registrar of Companies. The assessee further submitted that he has no involvement or connection whatsoever with the transactions reflected in these loose sheets. Page 15 and 16 of Annexure-A4 (Addition INR 2,06,00,000) contain names of certain firms along with month and year references, accompanied by tentative figures. The assessee submitted that these loose sheets were brought by clients for seeking professional advice based on preliminary or tentative figures. The assessee further clarified that these documents have no connection or relevance to his own transactions or accounts. Page 26 and 27 of Annexure- A4 - (Addition INR 1,65,00,000/-) The loose sheets contain certain working notes, with only the day and month mentioned (ranging from 02/03 to 31/03), but no year is indicated on these documents. The assessee submitted that these sheets represent rough working notes and are not related to any transactions of the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee submitted that these loose sheets do not pertain to the assessment year 2012-13, as the search Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal operation was conducted on 11.04.2011. Consequently, it is not possible for documents bearing dates in March of the financial year 2011-12 to have been seized from the assessee during the search.

The fact that the appellant during the course of search operation in his statement accepted that he is engaged in business of providing accommodation entries as moderator or facilitator cannot be ignored.

Further, the Hon’ble ITAT in its order dated 03.09.2021 observed that- “The submission of the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he was a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries and that only commission income should be considered as his income also has not been considered by the lower authorities”.

In view of the foregoing and based on the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of directions of the Hon’ble ITAT, commission income on transaction appearing on loose sheet forming part of Annexure-A4 is required to be added in hand of the appellant.

The Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain (supra) adopted rate of 0.5% commission income on accommodation entry as discussed above.

Accordingly based on the fact of the case and decision of Hon’ble ITAT in matter of Manoj Kumar Jain (supra), commission income @ 0.50% on transaction appearing on entries in Annexure -4 is required to be added in hand of the appellant. As a result, the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders are required to be modified to the following extent:- S. Assessment Loss Sheet Addition Made Commission income No. Year Annexure-4A by the AO @ 0.50% to be added 1. AY 2010-11 Page no.21-25 23,07,00,000 11,53,500 2. AY 2011-12 Page no.15-16 2,06,00,000 1,03,000 3. AY 2012-13 Page no.26-27 1,65,00,000 82,500

Considering the aforesaid fact, direction of Hon’ble ITAT and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Kabul Chawla (supra), I find that the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders for the above mentioned for assessment years are required to be restricted to commission income @0.50% since the appellant is engaged in business of providing Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal accommodation entries as moderator or facilitator of such accommodation entries. I hold accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed. Issue-4: Addition of cash amounting to Rs. 38,00,00 found from the premises of the appellant 59. With respect to the aforesaid issue, the AO has made the following observations: “In the assessment proceedings, the assessee replied over this issue that cash amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was sale consideration of premises E-371, IInd Floor, Nirman Vihar-110092 and balance of Rs. 800000 was cash in hand on date of search” “In response to the Show cause notice dated 22.03.2023 the assessee has submitted similar reply as given earlier. The assessee has not submitted any evidances in support of his claim that the amount was towards sale consideration of assessee premises E-371 IInd Floor, Nirman Vihar, Delhi- 110092 received by virtue of sell and purchase dated 20.03.2011 and balance Rs. 8,00,000/- was cash-in-hand. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 38,00,000/- is added as his undisclosed income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act for the AY 2012-13.”

The appellant has submitted that out of the total amount of Rs. 38,00,000/-, an opening cash balance of Rs. 8,00,000/- was held as cash in hand as on the relevant date. The remaining amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was received as advance against the sale of property. In support of the opening cash balance, the appellant furnished the statement of affairs reflecting cash in hand as of 31.03.2011. Additionally, for the cash received during the year, the appellant submitted a copy of the agreement to sell.

The explanation filed by the appellant for cash found during the course of search operation has been pursued. From these documentary submissions such as agreement to sale, statement of affairs for FY 2011-12 filed by the appellant during the course of assessment and statement of appellant recorded during the course of search operation, it is evident that the appellant had received cash amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/-. No cogent explanation for the said amount of cash has been furnished by the appellant except arguments which have already been submitted by him before the AO during the assessment proceedings and the same had been duly considered by the AO while framing the assessment order. The argument of the appellant that the same was an advance against the sale of Page | to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal property is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case since the appellant was dealing in cash as an entry operator and was receiving his amount of commission etc. in cash only. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the appellant that the said cash was an advance against the sale of property. Accordingly, I hold that the action of the AO in making the additions in the assessment order of cash found during the search amounting to Rs. 30,00,000 in para 7.2 of the order are clearly sustainable in the eyes of law and as a result the addition so made by the AO on this count is justified. For remaining cash of Rs. 8,00,000, the appellant as submitted that it is opening cash in hand. In support of the submission, the appellant filed a copy of statement of affairs during the course of assessment. In statement of affairs as at 31.03.2011 closing cash balance of Rs. 5,90,758 is reflected. Accordingly, the explanation of the appellant for opening cash balance to the extent Rs. 5,90,758 is acceptable.

Accordingly, the additions so made by the AO in the para 7.2 of assessment order for unexplained cash found during the course of search operations is confirmed to the extent of Rs. 32,09,242/- (the difference of opening balance 5,90,758 and cash found amounting to Rs. 38,00,000). Thus Ground for AY 2012-13 of the appeal is partly allowed. The addition in para 7.2 assessment order is modified, and AO is directed to restrict the addition to Rs. 30,09,242/- on account of unexplained cash. This ground may be treated as partly allowed.

As could be seen from the observations made by ld. CIT(A), as reproduced above, that he has reduced /deleted the additions solely on the basis of the statements of the assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee himself has admitted that he was working as mediator for providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and charged commission on such transactions. The ld. CIT(A) has bifurcated the additions in following categories A. Credits appearing in the bank account of the appellant; B. Credits appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant’s clients, relatives, or friends; to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal C. Credits appearing in the bank accounts of companies having no relation with the appellant and no documents related with these companies were found from the premises of appellant;

In category “A”, addition was made by AO for the entries appearing in the bank account of assessee which were treated as unexplained credits however, ld. CIT(A) observed that all these entries were duly recorded in the books of accounts and were considered in computing the total income declared in the return of income filed. However, before us, revenue has not been able to controvert this finding of ld. CIT(A) and moreover when these entries have already been part of the total income, any further addition tantamount to double addition of an income. Accordingly, order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld.

With respect to the additions covered under category “B”, ld. CIT(A) has observed that no document or evidence was found because of search, suggesting that assessee has any control over these accounts. Since it is a matter of fact that no adverse material was found and merely the assessee was introducer at the time of opening of these account, AO alleged that these accounts were managed and controlled by the assessee without having any to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal evidence in his possession in support of such allegation, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made for the credit entries in these accounts vide para 19 of his order, which order is hereby upheld.

Regarding category “C & D” above, though no incriminating material was found as a result of search and thus no addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee. However, since the assessee himself had admitted that he was facilitator / mediator, and managed and controlled the bank accounts of these companies for providing accommodation entries on commission basis, therefore, his income is limited to the commission received from the beneficiaries of such transactions. It is further seen that ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the judgement of coordinate bench of ITAT Delhi in case of Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT CC Ghaziabad in wherein the coordinate bench has confirmed the addition of commission @ 0.50% on the credit entries appearing the bank account of M/s Gurudev Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. In the instant case also, credits appearing in the bank account of the said company are accepted by the assessee as managed and controlled by him for providing accommodation entries. Thus, following the judgment of coordinate bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain (supra), ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as commission @ 0.50% on the transactions appearing in the bank account of companies which are managed and controlled by assessee for providing accommodation entries. In view of these facts and by following the judgement of coordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi ITA No.5719 to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal benches, we confirmed the findings given para 32 to 37 of the order as reproduced above.

Now coming to the additions made on the basis of the seized material, i.e. pocket diaries marked as Annexure A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9, we find that in these diaries various transactions of accommodation entries provided by the assessee to various beneficiaries are found noted. AO has made the addition for the gross value of such transactions by holding the same as undisclosed income of the assessee however, ld. CIT(A) restricted the same tot eh extent of the commission income @ 0.50 % on the gross value of such transactions for all the years before us. As observed above, assessee in his statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has accepted that he has earned commission on such transaction, therefore, we find no error in the order of ld. CIT(A) who has rightly reduced the addition to the extent of commission @ 0.50% earned by the assessee on such transactions.

In view of above discussions, we donot find any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A) who has passed a reasoned order after considering the facts and the order of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and of the order of jurisdictional high court in case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and further followed the judgement of coordinate Delhi bench of ITAT in case of Manoj Kumar Jain (supra) and confirmed the additions on account of commission earned by the assessee on such transactions of providing accommodation entries. Accordingly, we to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal uphold the order of ld. CIT(A). All the grounds of appeal taken in all the three appeals are thus dismissed.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20 are dismissed.